Emotional intelligence, moral reasoning and

transformational leadership
Niroshaan Sivanathan
School of Business, Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
G. Cynthia Fekken
Department of Psychology, Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Transformational leadership has emerged as
one of the most widely researched leadership
paradigms in organizational psychology.
Transformational leadership is the leaders
ability to motivate followers to achieve
beyond what was originally thought possible.
Bass (1985) proposed four factors that were
characteristic of transformational
leadership, commonly referred to as the
``four Is:
1 idealized influence (i.e. followers idealize
and emulate the behaviours of their
trusted leader);
2 inspirational motivation (i.e. followers
are motivated by attainment of a common
goal);
3 intellectual stimulation (i.e. followers are
encouraged to break away from old ways
of thinking and are encouraged to
question their values, beliefs and
expectations); and
4 individualized consideration (i.e.
followers needs are addressed both
individually and equitably) (Bass and
Avolio, 1997).
Transformational leaders can be contrasted
with two other types of leaders.
Transactional leaders are thought to have an
exchange based relationship with their
followers. Although transactional leadership
is known to be moderately effective when
practised well (Bass, 1998), such a
reinforcement based leader-follower
relationship has been empirically shown to
be less effective than transformational
leadership. The absence of leadership
characterizes laissez-faire leaders (Bass and
Avolio, 1997) who are found to be less
effective than transformational leaders.
Transformational leadership has
consistently shown advantageous effects on a
range of individual and organizational
outcomes (Bass, 1998). For example,
Barling et al. (1996) found that subordinates
organizational commitment was positively
correlated with the transformational
leadership behaviours of their supervisors.
Kelloway and Barling (1993) have also shown
the strongest predictor of loyalty to ones
union is the degree to which shop stewards
practised transformational leadership. In
addition, a positive relationship has also
been found between transformational
leadership and subordinate motivation (Masi
and Cooke, 2000). Perhaps most compelling is
the accumulating evidence showing
transformational leadership to be positively
associated with bottom line business
performance (Barling et al., 1996; Howell and
Avolio, 1993). In sum, the empirical literature
shows that transformational leadership is
positively associated with leader
effectiveness (Bass, 1998).
Because of the positive organizational
outcomes associated with transformational
leadership, researchers are exploring factors
that predict transformational leadership
behaviours (Rost, 1991). Such factors will
contribute to the theoretical elaboration of
transformational leadership theory and have
potential for improving leader training and
selection. Two variables showing much
promise are emotional intelligence (Sosik
and Megerian, 1999; Barling et al., 2000) and
cognitive moral reasoning (Atwater et al.,
1998, 1999; Turner et al., in press).
Emotional intelligence has been defined as:
An array of personal, emotional, and social
abilities and skills that determines how well
the individual functions in his or her given
environment (Bar-On, 1997, p. 1).
In their popular books, Goleman (1995) and
Stein and Book (2000) have argued that those
leaders with greater emotional intelligence
will be more effective leaders. We argue that
this relationship could be driven by the
conceptual overlap between the four aspects
of transformational leadership behaviours
relying heavily on the leaders personal,
emotional and social skills (Bass and Avolio,
1994) and the personal, social and emotional
abilities that make up emotional intelligence.
Indeed, positive relationships between
emotional intelligence and transformational
The research register for this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregisters
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm
[ 198]
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
23/4 [2002] 198204
# MCB UP Limited
[ISSN 0143-7739]
[DOI 10.1108/0143773021042906 1]
Keywords
Moral responsibility , Intelligence,
Leadership, Effectiveness
Abstract
Using university residence staff as
our leaders of interest, we explored
the associatio n of emotional
intelligence and moral reasoning to
leadershi p style and effectiveness .
A total of 58 residence staff
completed questionnaire s
assessing their emotional
intelligence and moral reasoning.
Subordinates (n=232) rated the
residence staffs leadershi p
behaviour s and effectiveness .
Residence staffs supervisor s
(n=12) also provided similar
effectiveness ratings. Analysi s
showed that leaders who reported
higher levels of emotional
intelligence were perceived by
their followers as higher in
transformationa l leadershi p and
more effective. Interestingly ,
having high emotional intelligence
was not related to supervisor s
ratings of effectiveness .
Supervisor s associated greater job
effectiveness with higher moral
reasoning. Theoretical implications
and practical applications of these
findings are discussed .
Received: November 2001
Accepted: January 2001
This article could not have
been completed without the
support and guidance of
Nick Turner. The authors
also wish to extend their
appreciation to Julian
Barling for his helpful
comments. They would also
like to thank Nancy Tatham,
Tom Sharp and Richard
Young for their help with
data collection.
leadership have been demonstrated in recent
studies (Barling et al., 2000; Palmer et al.,
2001). One study found managers in a plant to
show greater idealized influence,
inspirational motivation and individualized
consideration with increased levels of
emotional intelligence (Barling et al., 2000).
Another study found management students
with greater emotional intelligence to report
greater scores in inspirational motivation
and individualized consideration
components of transformational leadership
(Palmer et al., 2000).
Moral reasoning is thought to be ones
conceptual and analytical ability to frame
socio-moral problems using ones standards
and values in order to judge the proper
course of action (Rest, 1979). Recently, moral
reasoning has garnered interest among
organizational researchers because of
renewed emphasis on ethical leadership
(Howell and Avolio, 1992; Kanungo and
Mendonca, 1996). The data do indeed support
the argument that transformational
leadership should be empirically related to
moral reasoning because of shared emphases
on making good judgments about moral or
value related issues. In a study using
managers in one Canadian and two British
organizations, Turner et al. (in press) showed
that transformational leadership behaviours
were positively associated with levels of
moral reasoning. Another study found that
moral reasoning moderated leaders style
of punishment (contingent versus
non-contingent) and leader effectiveness
(Atwater et al., 1998). A related study found
that cadets displaying higher moral
reasoning were judged as being more
effective as leaders (Atwater et al., 1999).
Thus, emotional intelligence and moral
reasoning are conceptually and empirically
linked to transformational leadership
behaviours. Examination of both
simultaneously is timely and allows
assessment of the relative contributions of
each to leadership style. In the present study,
we examine this research question using
residence dons as leaders. Residence dons are
student leaders appointed by universities to
serve as a resource for academic and
personal matters that are of concern to
students living in residences. In addition to
their main effects, we test the hypothesis that
emotional intelligence and moral reasoning
will interact in their effect on
transformational leadership. Perhaps leaders
who are high in emotional intelligence are
especially able to determine which social
variables are relevant to socio-moral
dilemmas. Finally, consistent with existing
literature, we hypothesize that
transformational leadership will be
positively related to leader effectiveness.
Method
Participants
Three distinct groups of volunteers
participated in this study:
1 residence dons from all the residences of a
mid-sized Ontario university;
2 the residence supervisors (i.e. dons
immediate supervisors); and
3 residents from the various residences.
Of the 75 residence dons invited to
participate in the study, 58 dons participated
(30 women, 28 men). Mean age of women was
22.43 years (SD=1.52) with a range of 20-29
years. Mean age of men was 22.81 years
(SD=1.36) with range of 21-26 years.
Of the 13 residence supervisors invited to
participate in the study, 12 supervisors
volunteered (eight women, four men). No
other demographic information was collected
from the supervisors.
The residents of the participating dons
were volunteers selected through the method
of convenience. Four students per residence
don were sampled, resulting in 232 resident
participants (127 women, 105 men). The mean
age of women was 19.01 years (SD=0.89);
mean age of men was 19.14 years (SD=1.34).
Materials
We used four questionnaires in this study.
The first scale used was the emotional
quotient inventory (EQi) (Bar-On, 1997), a
133-item self-measure of ones level of
emotional intelligence. Items are answered
using a five-point Likert scale where 1
indicates ``very seldom or not true of me and
5 indicates ``very often true of me. Although
the EQi is made up of five composite scales,
i.e.:
1 intrapersonal;
2 interpersonal;
3 adaptability;
4 stress management; and
5 general mood;
only the total emotional intelligence score
was used. This score is standardized to a
mean of 100 with a standard deviation of 15.
The EQi technical manual (Bar-On, 1997)
summarizes psychometric evidence derived
from many studies conducted in diverse
work settings. The EQi has shown good
reliability with internal consistencies
ranging from 0.69 to 0.86 and one month
test-retest stabilities ranging from 0.78 to
0.92. In addition, the technical manual
presents evidence to support the construct
[ 199]
Niroshaan Sivanathan and
G. Cynthia Fekken
Emotional intelligence, moral
reasoning and
transformational leadership
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
23/4 [2002] 198204
validity of the EQi. In particular, the EQi
total score is correlated with conceptually
relevant personality variables, appropriately
uncorrelated with conventional intelligence
test scores and predictive of work outcomes
including job performance.
The second scale used was the defining
issues test short form (DIT) (Rest, 1990).
This is a self-report measure comprised of
three moral dilemmas to which the
respondent is asked to make a morally
challenging decision. Reasons for the
decision are scored according to Kohlbergs
stages of moral development. Test-retest
reliabilities of the DIT are generally in the
high 0.70 and 0.80s, and Cronbachs alpha also
in the high 0.70s (Rest, 1990). Along with face
validity, the DIT has shown significant group
differences in criterion group validity and
correlations around 0.60 and 0.70 with other
measures of moral reasoning in convergent/
divergent validity tests (Rest, 1990).
The third scale used was the multifactor
leadership questionnaire (MLQ-5X) (Bass and
Avolio, 1995), a 36-item measure of leadership
style assessing transformational,
transactional and laissez-faire leadership
behaviours. The rater form of this
questionnaire was used to assess leadership
behaviours of dons by their residents. Items
are answered using a five-point Likert scale
where 0 indicates ``not at all and 4 indicates
``frequently, if not always. Given that the
MLQ-5X was designed for an organizational
setting, some items were modified by adding
a parenthetical comment linking it to the
residence context and identifying the don as
the focal leader when completing the items.
Each don was given a mean score across the
four resident raters for each of the
transformational, transactional and laissez-
faire scales. Bass and Avolio (1997) showed
reliabilities of the subscales to be greater
than 0.77. The scales were also shown to be
internally consistent in test-retest measures.
The MLQ-5X manual also presents evidence
for predictive validity on various
organizational outcomes.
Finally, to minimize the effect of
monomethod bias, two external criterion
measures were collected to evaluate the
effectiveness of each don. Resident ratings of
don effectiveness were based on the sum of
six items extracted from a larger appraisal
form completed each autumn by residents as
part of an exercise by the university to
evaluate the residence system. In addition,
ratings of don effectiveness were collected
from the 12 immediate supervisors who
completed the same six items.
Procedure
Most dons responded to the emotional
quotient inventory and the defining issues
test at a biannual training session of all dons;
others were approached individually. Dons
mailed the completed questionnaires directly
via campus mail to the second author.
Supervisor ratings of don effectiveness were
completed by supervisors at one of their
weekly meetings and were also mailed via
campus mail to the second author.
Residents of the dons were approached
randomly in their residence and asked to fill
out the MLQ-5X using their residence don as
the target leader. The mean score across each
leadership dimension was calculated by
summing the score of each dimension across
the raters per don and dividing by the
number of raters per don. This resulted in an
aggregated leadership score per don.
Missing data for the EQi were dealt with by
prorating the available data for each don
with a set criterion of 95 per cent response
rate. DITs with any missing data were
discarded from the analysis. Missing data for
the MLQ were dealt with by prorating each
leadership style scale with a set criterion of
90 per cent response rate.
Results
The means, standard deviations and range
for the emotional intelligence, moral
reasoning, transformational leadership,
transactional leadership, laissez-faire
leadership, supervisor ratings and resident
ratings presented in Table I are comparable
to sample means reported in the literature
(Bar-On, 1997; Dawda and Hart, 2000, Rest,
1990; Bass and Avolio, 1995).
The internal consistencies were also
calculated for total scores on the EQi, DIT,
MLQ-5X and the supervisor rating scales.
Following the suggestion by Gregory (2000), a
Cronbachs alpha of 0.70 was set as the
criterion for minimum internal consistency.
The EQi revealed an alpha coefficient of 0.80,
indicating good reliability (Gregory, 2000).
The Cronbachs alpha for the DIT was 0.44.
This is much lower than the reliability
reported by the test manual (Rest, 1990).
Following the procedure described in the test
manual, coefficient alpha was estimated for
all 36 items on the MLQ-5X, resulting in an
alpha coefficient of 0.87. The reliability of the
supervisor ratings also revealed strong
reliability with an alpha coefficient of 0.88.
Because the researchers were not furnished
with the raw data from the original appraisal
survey, the resident ratings of don
[ 200]
Niroshaan Sivanathan and
G. Cynthia Fekken
Emotional intelligence, moral
reasoning and
transformational leadership
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
23/4 [2002] 198204
effectiveness did not lend itself to an internal
consistency analysis.
As can be seen from Table II,
transformational leadership is positively
correlated to emotional intelligence and
resident ratings of don effectiveness, whereas
transactional leadership is negatively
correlated with moral reasoning and
positively correlated with supervisor ratings
of don effectiveness. Correlated data
suggested none of the variables were so
highly intercorrelated as to preclude
performing a regression analysis.
Regression analysis
The influence of emotional intelligence and
moral reasoning on transformational
leadership was examined using multiple
regression. First, following the directions
outlined by Aiken and West (1991), the data
for each of these two variables were centered.
In particular, the mean scores were
subtracted from each observation; consistent
with Aiken and West (1991), standard
deviations were not adjusted. Entered
simultaneously, emotional intelligence and
moral reasoning accounted for 17 per cent
(R
2
=0.17, SE=0.44; adjusted R
2
=0.14) of the
variance in transformational leadership,
F(2, 52) =5.42, p<0.01. A significant beta
weight (t =3.2, p<0.002) was associated with
emotional intelligence. Next, an interaction
term, calculated by multiplying centered
scores for emotional intelligence and moral
reasoning, was entered into the equation.
Although the overall regression equation
remained significant (F (3,51) =3.56, p <0.02),
the interaction term did not achieve a
significant beta weight.
Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to
enhance our understanding of
transformational leadership by evaluating its
associations with emotional intelligence,
moral reasoning and leader effectiveness.
Analysis revealed that followers evaluations
of leaders transformational behaviours were
positively related to leaders self-reports of
emotional intelligence and resident
ratings on leadership effectiveness.
Transformational leadership was not related
to either self-reports of moral reasoning or
supervisor ratings of don effectiveness.
There was no evidence that high levels of
both emotional intelligence and moral
reasoning interacted to influence
transformational leadership beyond the
additive effects. Nonetheless, our
multi-source data demonstrated a set of
predicted associations between
transformational leadership and
theoretically meaningful variables.
As hypothesized, leaders reporting greater
emotional intelligence were perceived by the
residents to display greater transformational
behaviours. In addition, they were perceived
to be more effective. These findings replicate
Table II
Intercorrelations of emotional intelligence, moral reasoning and leadership variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Emotional intelligence 17 40** 03 23 07 30*
2. Moral reasoning 04 37** 19 29* 02
3. Transformational leadership 13 39** 13 60**
4. Transactional leadership 01 28* 03
5. Laissez-faire leadership 14 22
6. Supervisor rating 16
7. Resident rating
Notes: Decimals omitted
*p< 0.05; ** p < 0.01
Table I
Descriptive statistics for key variables
Scale Cases Mean Standard deviation Range
Emotional intelligence 58 97.76 11.40 60.30 - 126.31
Moral reasoning 55 40.54 16.96 6.67 - 83.33
Transformational leadership 58 2.47 0.50 1.08 - 3.44
Transactional leadership 58 1.82 0.23 1.25 - 2.35
Laissez-faire leadership 58 0.98 1.07 0.13 - 2.19
Supervisor rating 58 4.10 0.60 2.67 - 5.00
Resident rating 57 4.12 0.35 2.75 - 4.61
[ 201]
Niroshaan Sivanathan and
G. Cynthia Fekken
Emotional intelligence, moral
reasoning and
transformational leadership
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
23/4 [2002] 198204
earlier work by Barling et al. (2000) and
Palmer et al. (2000) and supports Goleman
(1995) and Stein and Books (2000) contention
that effective leaders are socially adept.
Contrary to the hypothesis, leaders
displaying greater moral reasoning were not
found to display greater transformational
leadership behaviours. A likely explanation
is the low Cronbachs alpha for the DIT. The
test of Cronbachs alpha is sensitive to both
variance and number of items. In the current
study, consider that the total number of items
being analyzed was three. Thus, the low
Cronbachs alpha could likely be a function of
the number of items (Cortina, 1993).
Furthermore, consider that the sample
population analyzed was homogeneous. The
dons were a restricted sample in terms of age
and education. This is especially a problem
given the evidence that age and education
account for 52 per cent of total variance in
DIT (as cited by Bernardi, 1994). For instance,
a similar study using the DIT short version
on a homogeneous sample found a
comparable Cronbachs alpha of 0.35
(Bernardi, 1994). Attempting to compare the
current studys Cronbachs alpha of 0.44 to
that of the Cronbachs alpha reported in the
test manual would be an unfair comparison
(Cooper and Richardson, 1986). Thus, we
argue the low Cronbachs alpha is a result of
range restriction found in a homogenous
sample along with the use of the short
version of the DIT. However, given the
empirical evidence supporting use of the DIT
in the literature, we decided to use this
measure. Nevertheless, future research
employing the longer version of the DIT or
the newer versions of the DIT is needed to
address more thoroughly the relationship
between transformational leadership and
moral reasoning.
Another avenue for exploring further the
relationship between transformational
leadership and moral reasoning may be to
look at the factor structure of the MLQ-5X.
Although the original theory suggests that
the MLQ-5X is based on a nine correlated-
factor model (Bass and Avolio, 1997), other
empirical studies show evidence of a six
correlated-factor model (Avolio et al., 1999)
and a three correlated-factor model (Den
Hartog et al., 1999).
This study was able to replicate the
findings in the literature of transformational
leaders being rated as more effective by their
followers (as cited by Bass, 1998); however,
the present study had no evidence of dons
exhibiting transformational behaviours as
being rated as more effective leaders by their
supervisors. Perhaps the explanation is
methodological. The residents rated only
their own don on effectiveness whereas the
supervisors were rating a minimum of four
dons each. Supervisors might have ranked
each don relative to the effectiveness of their
comparison group. This is a common
methodological issue in organizational
research usually supervisor ratings are
collected for multiple subjects from a single
supervisor.
An alternate explanation is that residents
and supervisors are sensitive to different
aspects of the dons role when rating
effectiveness. The differential correlations
between ratings of effectiveness and dons
self-reported emotional intelligence and
moral reasoning suggests that, for residents,
an effective don is socially skilled and for
supervisors, an effective don is able to reason
about complex moral issues that might arise
in residences. Other research supports the
argument that effectiveness ratings vary as a
function of rater-ratee relationship (Hoijberg
and Choi, 2000). Future research might
employ a 360 degree feedback program that
would allow a comprehensive assessment of
the leader when exploring this issue.
We also suggest that the current findings
may contribute to developing practical
applications. First, Stein and Book (2000)
have claimed from the review of the work by
Bar-On that a persons emotional intelligence
is trainable, whereas Dukerich et al. (1990)
have shown moral development to be
trainable in group settings. Leadership
research likewise supports the view that
transformational leadership is trainable
(Barling et al., 1996; McElroy and Stark, 1992;
Micha et al., 1992). Thus, given the empirical
link that we have found between emotional
intelligence and transformational leadership
as well as moral reasoning and transactional
leadership, further research might explore
the indirect effects of emotional intelligence
and moral reasoning on the trainability of
transformational leadership. Perhaps
simultaneous training of emotional
intelligence and moral reasoning might have
positive outcomes in organizational training
and development of their leaders.
There are some limitations to the study
that need to be addressed. Although the study
exhausted close to the maximum number of
dons available at the university for the study,
the sample size remains small. However, we
were able to replicate significant links
between the variables found in the past
literature. Another limitation is the issue of
external validity. It could be argued that the
residence dons leadership is not
generalizable to other types of leaders, such
as industrial leaders. Perhaps industrial
leaders operate in a more structured setting
[ 202]
Niroshaan Sivanathan and
G. Cynthia Fekken
Emotional intelligence, moral
reasoning and
transformational leadership
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
23/4 [2002] 198204
and hence exhibit categorically different
leadership. Nonetheless, leadership ratings
of dons on the MLQ-5X showed the expected
variability as seen in the normative data
(Bass and Avolio, 1997). Moreover, given
developmental studies showing
transformational leadership may begin to
develop during adolescence (Zacharatos et al.,
2001), using dons to measure
transformational leadership in young adults
only helps further our understanding of
leadership in various contexts. The present
study provides support for future
researchers who might wish to extend the
present research to examine emotional
intelligence and moral reasoning
simultaneously in industrial settings.
Although it would be intuitive to presume
that high emotional intelligence increases
ones transformational leadership
behaviours, or that ones higher level of
moral reasoning decreases the amount of
transactional leadership behaviours, it is
important to note that the current study does
not lend itself to causal inferences. For
instance, it is plausible for one to argue that
the nature of the job requiring greater
transformational behaviours might in the
process increase ones emotional
intelligence. Similarly, it could be argued
that resorting to less transactional
leadership behaviours on the job, the
individual finds oneself in an environment
that helps boost the level of moral reasoning.
Although we cannot make causal links
between the variables studied, the present
study is important to the leadership
literature for two reasons. It is the first study
to look simultaneously at the constructs of
emotional intelligence and moral reasoning
with respect to Basss (1985) transformational
leadership paradigm. Second, it was able to
replicate the links found between emotional
intelligence and transformational leadership
as seen in the literature. Although it was not
able to replicate the link found between
moral reasoning and transformational
leadership in the literature (Turner et al., in
press), there was a link found between moral
reasoning and transactional leadership.
Finally, given the multi-source nature of the
data in the current study, it provides a strong
starting point for further analysis of the
causal nature of the variables studied and,
furthermore, for modeling the pathway
between the predictor variables, leadership
behaviours and leadership effectiveness.
Such research will shed light onto the
developmental nature of transformational
leadership as well as provide practical
implications for leadership training
programs.
References
Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple
Regression: Testing and Interpreting
Interactions, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Atwater, L.E., Dionne, S.D., Avolio, B.,
Cambreco, J.F. and Lau, A.W. (1999),
``A longitudinal study of the leadership
development process: individual differences
predicting leader effectiveness, Human
Relations, Vol. 52, pp. 1543-62.
Atwater, L.E., Dionne, S.D., Camobreco, J.F.,
Avolio, B.J. and Lau, A. (1998), ``Individual
attributes and leadership style: predicting the
use of punishment and its effects, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19, pp. 559-76.
Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. and Jung, D.I. (1999),
``Re-examining the components of
transformational and transactional
leadership using the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72, pp. 441-62.
Barling, J., Slater, F. and Kelloway, E.K. (2000),
``Transformational leadership and emotional
intelligence: an exploratory study,
Leadership and Organizational Development
Journal, Vol. 21, pp. 157-61.
Barling, J., Weber, T. and Kelloway, E.K. (1996),
``Effects of transformational leadership
training and attitudinal and fiscal outcomes.
A field experiment, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 827-32.
Bar-On, R. (1997), BarOn Emotional Quotient
Inventory Technical Manual, Multi-Health
Systems, Toronto.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance
Beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York,
NY.
Bass, B.M. (1998), Transformational Leadership:
Industrial, Military, and Educational Impact,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994), Improving
Organizational Effectiveness through
Transformational Leadership, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1995), MLQ
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for
Research: Permission Set, Mind Garden,
Palo Alto, CA.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1997), Full Range
Leadership Development: Manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Mind
Garden, Palo Alto, CA.
Bernardi, R.A. (1994), ``Validating research
results when Cronbachs alpha is below .70: a
methodological procedure, Educational and
Psychological Measurement, Vol. 54, pp. 766-75.
Cooper, W.H. and Richardson, A.J. (1986), ``Unfair
comparisons, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 71, pp. 179-84.
Cortina, J.M. (1993), ``What is coefficient alpha?
An examination of theory and applications ,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78,
pp. 98-104.
[ 203 ]
Niroshaan Sivanathan and
G. Cynthia Fekken
Emotional intelligence, moral
reasoning and
transformational leadership
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
23/4 [2002] 198204
Dawda, D. and Hart, S.D. (2000), ``Assessing
emotional intelligence: reliability and
validity of the Bar-On Emotional Quotient
Inventory (EQ-i) in university students,
Personality and Individual Differences,
Vol. 28, pp. 797-812.
Den Hartog, D.N., vanMuijen, J.J. and
Koopman, P.L. (1997), ``Transactional versus
transformational leadership: an analysis of
the MLQ, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 70, pp. 19-34.
Dukerich, J.M., Nichols, M.L., Elm, D.R. and
Vollrath, D.A. (1990), ``Moral reasoning in
groups: leaders make a difference, Human
Relations, Vol. 43, pp. 473-93.
Goleman, D. (1995), Emotional Intelligence,
Bantam Books, New York, NY.
Gregory, J.R. (2000), Psychological Testing:
History, Principles, and Applications, Allyn
and Bacon, Toronto.
Hoijberg, R. and Choi, J. (2000), ``Which
leadership roles matter to whom? An
examination of rater effects on perception of
effectiveness, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 11,
pp. 341-64.
Howell, J.M., and Avolio, B.J. (1992), ``The ethics
of charismatic leadership: submission or
liberation?, Academy of Management
Executive, Vol. 6, pp. 43-54.
Howell, J.M. and Avoilio, B.J. (1993),
``Transformational leadership, transactional
leadership, locus of control and support for
innovation: key predictors of consolidated-
business-unit performance, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 891-902.
Kanungo, R.N. and Mendonca, M. (1996), Ethical
Dimensions of Leadership, Sage, London.
Kelloway, E.K. and Barling, J. (1993), ``Members
participation in local union activities:
measurement, prediction, and replication,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78,
pp. 22-279.
McElroy, J.C. and Stark, E. (1992), ``A thematic
approach to leadership training, Journal of
Managerial Issues, Vol. 4, pp. 241-53.
Masi, R.J. and Cooke, R.A. (2000), ``Effects of
transformational leadership on subordinate
motivation, empowering norms, and
organizational productivity, International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 8,
pp. 16-47.
Micha, P., Ori, L. and Gluskinos, U.M. (1992), ``The
Israeli defense forces: an example of
transformational leadership, Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 13,
pp. 3-8.
Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, M. and Stough, C.
(2001), ``Emotional intelligence and effective
leadership, Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 5-10.
Rest, J.R. (1979), Development in Judging Moral
Issues, University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis, MN.
Rest, J.R. (1990), DIT Manual, 3rd ed., Center for
the Study of Ethical Development, Minnesota,
MN.
Rost, J.C. (1991), Leadership for the Twenty-first
Century, Greenwood, New York, NY.
Sosik, J.J. and Megerian, L.F. (1999),
``Understanding leader emotional intelligence
and performance: the role of self-other
agreement on transformational leadership
perceptions, Group and Organizational
Management, Vol. 24, pp. 367-90.
Stein, S.J. and Book, H.E. (2000), The EQ Edge:
Emotional Intelligence and Your Success,
Stoddart Publishing, Toronto.
Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitropaki, O., Butcher,
V. and Miller, C. (in press), ``Moral reasoning
and transformational leadership, Journal of
Applied Psychology.
Zacharatos, A., Barling, J. and Kelloway, E.K.
(2001), ``Development and effects of
transformational leadership in adolescents,
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 11, pp. 211-26.
[ 204 ]
Niroshaan Sivanathan and
G. Cynthia Fekken
Emotional intelligence, moral
reasoning and
transformational leadership
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
23/4 [2002] 198204